This is basically the same question as Docker and BrowserSync :
How can I access browsersync's port 3000 from the browser i.e. outside the docker container?
Why I post it separately: probably ddev provides some routing option to map the ports, so I don't have to change browsersync's options?
Related
I build a very simple web app and web api on .net core and configured the docker-compose to get them to communicate over the same network correctly.
On visual studio, when I hit play on the Docker Compose project, it runs fine, both the web app and the web api work and communicate correctly.
On the Docker Desktop app i see them running (green).
But when I close/stop the debugger on VS I can't access the websites anymore even though the containers are still running. I thought docker worked as a sort of IIS.
Am I misunderstanding the docker capabilities or do I need to run them again from a CLI or publish them somewhere or what?
I thought the fact the containers are up and running should mean they're live for me to navigate to.
Help me out over here please.
You are correct, unless there is some special routing happening, the fact that the containers are running means your services are available.
You can see the ports being exposed from the docker ps -a command:
CONTAINER_ID: 560f78689902
IMAGE: moviedecisionweb:dev
COMMAND: "C:\\remote_debugger\\…"
CREATED: About a minute ago
STATUS: Up About a minute
PORTS: 0.0.0.0:52002->80/tcp, 0.0.0.0:52001->443/tcp
NAMES: mdweb
CONTAINER_ID: 1cd7f72426fe
IMAGE: moviedecisionapi:dev
COMMAND: "C:\\remote_debugger\\…"
CREATED: About a minute ago
STATUS: Up About a minute
PORTS: 0.0.0.0:52005->80/tcp, 0.0.0.0:52004->443/tcp
NAMES: mdapi
Based on the provided output, you have two docker containers running.
I'm assuming the ports 80 & 443 are serving the HTTP & HTTPS services (respectively) from your app/s.
Based on this...
For container "mdweb", you should be able to access the docker services from your docker host machine (PC) via:
http://0.0.0.0:52002
https://0.0.0.0:52001
For container "mdapi", you should be able to access the docker services from your docker host machine (PC) via:
http://0.0.0.0:52005
https://0.0.0.0:52004
I believe you can use localhost, 127.0.0.1 & 0.0.0.0 interchangeably in the above.
You cannot use the hostnames "mdweb" or "mdapi" from your docker HOST machine - unless you have explicitly setup your DNS to handle these names. However you can use these hostnames if you are inside a docker container on the same docker network.
If you provide more information (e.g. your docker-compose.yml), we could help you further...
I'm new with docker and I'm probably missing a lot, although i went through the basic documentation and I'm trying to deploy a simple Spring Boot API
I've deployed my API as a docker-spring-boot .jar file , then i installed docker and pushed it with the following commands:
sudo docker login
sudo docker tag docker-spring-boot phillalexakis/myfirstapi:01
sudo docker push phillalexakis/myfirstapi:01
Then i started the API with the docker run command:
sudo docker run -p 7777:8085 phillalexakis/myfirstapi:01
When i visit localhost:7777/hello I'm getting the desired response
This is my Dockerfile
FROM openjdk:8
ADD target/docker-spring-boot.jar docker-spring-boot.jar
EXPOSE 8085
ENTRYPOINT ["java","-jar","docker-spring-boot.jar"]
Based on this answered post this the command to get the ip address
docker inspect -f '{{range .NetworkSettings.Networks}}{{.IPAddress}}{{end}}' container_name_or_id
So, i run it with container_name_or_id = phillalexakis/myfirstapi:01 and I'm getting this error
Template parsing error: template: :1:24: executing "" at <.NetworkSettings.Networks>: map has no entry for key "NetworkSettings"
If i manage somehow to get the IP will i be able to visit it and get the same response?
This is how i have it in my mind: ip:7777/hello
You have used the image name and not the container name.
Get the container name by executing docker ps.
The container ID is the value in the first column, the container name is the value in the last column. You can use both.
Then, when you have the IP, you will be able to access your API at IP:8085/hello, not IP:7777/hello
The port 7777 is available on the Docker Host and maps to the port 8085 on the container. If you are accessing the container directly - which you do, when you use its IP address - you need to use the port that the container exposes.
There is also another alternative:
You can give the container a name when you start it by specifying the --name parameter:
sudo docker run -p 7777:8085 --name spring_api phillalexakis/myfirstapi:01
Now, from your Docker host, you can access your API by using that name: spring_api:8085/hello
You should never need to look up that IP address, and it often isn't useful.
If you're trying to call the service from outside Docker space, you've done the right thing: use the docker run -p option to publish its port to the host, and use the name of the host to access it. If you're trying to call it from another container, create a network, make sure to run both containers with a --net option pointing at that network, and they can reach other using the other's --name as a hostname, and the container-internal port the other service is listening on (-p options have no effect and aren't required).
The Docker-internal IP address just doesn't work in a variety of common situations. If you're on a different host, it will be unreachable. If your local Docker setup uses a virtual machine (Docker Machine, Docker for Mac, minikube, ...) you can't reach the IP address directly from the host. Even if it does work, when you delete and recreate the container, it's likely to change. Looking it up as you note also requires an additional (privileged) operation, which the docker run -p path avoids.
The invocation you have matches the docker inspect documentation (as #DanielHilgarth notes, make sure to run it on the container and not the image). In the specific situation where it will work (you are on the same native-Linux host as the container) you will need to use the unmapped port, e.g. http://172.17.0.2:8085/hello.
I have a spring-config-sever project that I am trying to run via Docker. I can run it from the command line and my other services and browser successfully connect via:
http://localhost:8980/aservice/dev
However, if I run it via Docker, the call fails.
My config-server has a Dockerfile:
FROM openjdk:8-jdk-alpine
VOLUME /tmp
ARG JAR_FILE=build/libs/my-config-server-0.1.0.jar
ADD ${JAR_FILE} my-config-server-0.1.0.jar
EXPOSE 8980
ENTRYPOINT ["java","-Djava.security.egd=file:/dev/./urandom","-jar","/my-config-server-0.1.0.jar"]
I build via:
docker build -t my-config-server .
I am running it via:
docker run my-config-server -p 8980:8980
And then I confirm it is running via
docker ps
CONTAINER ID IMAGE COMMAND CREATED STATUS PORTS NAMES
1cecafdf99fe my-config-server "java -Djava.securit…" 14 seconds ago Up 13 seconds 8980/tcp suspicious_brahmagupta
When I run it via Docker, the browse fails with a "ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED" and my calling services fails with:
Could not locate PropertySource: I/O error on GET request for
"http://localhost:8980/aservice/dev": Connection refused (Connection
refused);
Adding full answer based on comments.
First, you have to specify -p before image name.
docker run -p 8980:8980 my-config-server.
Second, just configuring localhost with host port won't make your my-service container to talk to other container. locahost in container is within itself(not host). You will need to use appropriate docker networking model so both containers can talk to each other.
If you are on Linux, the default is Bridge so you can configure my-config-server container ip docker inspect {containerIp-of-config-server} as your config server endpoint.
Example if your my-config-server ip is 172.17.0.2 then endpoint is - http://172.17.0.2:8980/
spring:
cloud:
config:
uri: http://172.17.0.2:8980
Just follow the docker documentation for little bit more understanding on how networking works.
https://docs.docker.com/network/network-tutorial-standalone/
https://docs.docker.com/v17.09/engine/userguide/networking/
If you want to spin up both containers using docker-compose, then you can link both containers using service name. Just follow Networking in Compose.
I could imagine that the application only listens on localhost, ie 127.0.0.1.
You might want to try setting the property server.address to 0.0.0.0.
Then port 8980 should also be available externally.
According to the docker documentation here
https://docs.docker.com/network/host/
The host networking driver only works on Linux hosts, and is not supported on Docker for Mac, Docker for Windows, or Docker EE for Windows Server.
On Mac what alternatives do people use?
My scenario
I want to run a docker container that'll host a micro-service
The micro-service has dependencies upon databases that I'm also running via docker
I thought I'd be able to use --net=host on Mac when running the micro-service
But the micro-service port is not exposed
I can override the db addresses (they default to localhost) on the microservice.
But that involves robust --env usage
What's the simplest / most elegant solution?
The most simple and most elegant solution is to use docker named bridge network.
You can create a custom bridge network (default is bridge) like this:
docker network create my-network
Every container deployed inside this network can communicate with each other by using the container name.
$ docker run --network=my-network --name my-app ...
$ docker run --network=my-network --name my-database...
In the example above you can connect to your database from inside your application by using my-database:port. If the container port is exposed in the Dockerfile you don't need to map it on your host and you can keep all your communication internal inside your custom docker bridge network.
In most cases the application its port is mapped (example: -p 80:80) so localhost:80 is mapped on container:80 and you can access the app from on your localhost. If the app needs to communicate with a db you don't need to expose the port of the db and you don't have to map it on localhost as explained already above.
Just keep the communication between app and db internal in your custom bridge network.
In my job I working with docker and the option --net=host working like a charm forwarding the docker container ports to the machine. This allows me to adding grunt tasks that use certain ports by example:
A taks for serving my coverage report in a port 9001
A local deployed version of my app served in the port 9000
A watch live reload the port 35729
For Unit testing runner use the 9876 port
When I begin to use Docker in Mac, the first problem that i had was: The option --net=host don't work anymore.
I researched and I understand why this is not possible (Docker in Mac runs in a own virtual machine) and my momentary solution it's use the -p option for expose the ports, but this limit to me to add more and more task that use ports because i need run the explicit -p command for each port that i need expose.
Anyone with this same problem? How to dealing with this ?
Your issue is most probably that you are using dockertoolbox or dhingy/dlite or anything else providing a full-fledged linux VM, which then hosts docker to run your container inside this VM. This VM has, of course, its own network stack and own IP on the host, and thats were your tools will have issues with. The exposed ports of the container are not exposed to OSX host localhost, but rather OSX Docker-VM-ip.
To solve those issues elegantly
Expose ports to OSX localhost from the container
First, use/install docker-for-mac https://docs.docker.com/engine/installation/mac/ instead of dockertoolbox or others. Its based on a special xhyve stack which reuses your hosts network stack
when you now do docker run -p 3306:3306 percona it will bind 3306 on the osx-host-localhost, thus every other osx-tool trying to attach to localhost:3306 will work ( very useful ) just as you have been used to it when you installed mysql using brew install mysql or likewise
If you experience performance issues with code shares on OSX with docker containers, check http://docker-sync.io - it is compatible with docker-for-mac ( hint: i am biased on this one )
Export ports from the OSX-host to a containter
You do not really export anything in particular, you rather make them accessable as a whole from all containers ( all ports of the OSX-host-localhost)
If you want to attach to a port you offered on the OSX host, from within a container, e.g. during a xdebug session were your IDE listens on port 9000 on the OSX-host-localhost and the container running FPM/PHP should attach to this osx-localhost:9000 on the mac, you need to do this: https://gist.github.com/EugenMayer/3019516e5a3b3a01b6eac88190327e7c
So you create a dummy loopback ip, so you can access your OSX-host ports from without containers using 10.254.254.254:9000 - this is portable and basically gives you all you need to develop like you have used to
So one gives you the connectivity to container-exposed ports to apps running on the mac and trying to connect to localhost:port
And the second the inverse, if something in the container wants to attach to a port on the host.
One workaround, mentioned in "Bind container ports to the host" would be to use -P:
(or --publish-all=true|false) to docker run which is a blanket operation that identifies every port with an EXPOSE line in the image’s Dockerfile or --expose <port> commandline flag and maps it to a host port somewhere within an ephemeral port range.
The docker port command then needs to be used to inspect created mapping.
So if your app can use docker port <CONTAINER> to retrieve the mapped port, you can add as many containers as you want and get the mapped ports that way (without needed an "explicit -p command for each port").
Not sure if docker for mac can support bi-directional connection later https://forums.docker.com/t/will-docker-for-mac-support-bi-directional-connection-between-host-and-container-in-the-future/19871
I have two solution:
you can write a simple wrapper script and pass the port you want to expose to the script
use vagrant to start a virtual machine with network under control.